Introduction

The
duck-billed platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a unique
creationary case, and one that requires a great deal of consideration
and debate. Since we can not accurately define the Biblical "kinds"
we should be careful about denying that animals are transitionals.
It is almost certain that groups of animals exists, that are
considered by creationists to be unique kinds, which are instead
related. If it were not for the breeding history of the canine,
it is likely none of us would realize that the fox, wolf, hyena,
etc., all belong to the same kindship group. We could easily
be guilty of denying a fox-looking wolf was a transitional, but
indeed that would be the case. The significance of bear-looking
raccoons or visa-versa may likewise be overlooked by not recognizing
these transitionals as such.

Given our knowledge of evolution
and the production of variability through genetic
recombination, it would appear certain that no Biblical "kind"
would exist today as only a single species. Although species
extinctions are certain in a compromised post-flood environment,
the Biblical kinds possessed
the ability to survive through evolutionary adaptations, and
have evolved in most cases following the great flood into a tremendous
variety of species. In addition, God created a great many varieties
within each major group of organisms. The creationary community
generally accept the many mammalian Families are frequently analogous
to the groups defined in the Bible as "kinds". Not
only are there a great many types of mammals (i.e. carnivores,
rodents, cloven-hoofed), but also many Biblical
kinds within each of these major groups. If would therefore
seem extremely unlikely, that following their preservation from
the flood, every species but one from an entire group like the
placental mammals would be extinct today. That may indeed be
the case with the duck-billed platypus unless this animal has
evolved from another animal.

Monotremes - Egg-laying Mammals

The
duck-billed platypus is a monotreme which are a subfamily of
mammals. They feed their young with milk, but instead of suckling
from a teat, the milk simply oozes from glands under the skin,
and is lapped up from a patch of fur. However, the most unique
feature possessed by these mammals is their egg-laying reproduction
(pictured at right) instead of live birth like all other mammals .
Other than the duck-billed platypus, there is only one other
monotreme living today; a small spiny anteater called an Echidna.
Monotremes, like most of the marsupials
on earth are found exclusively in Australia.

The
platypus also possesses a number of other specializations many
of which are unique to the platypi. They have a duck-like bill
for dabbling through mud which is actually an elongated snout,
and a paddle tale similar to a beavers that it uses for swimming.
The male platypus is also equipped with a poisonous spur effective
for defense against predators and mating competitors.

Similarities to Marsupials

Monotremes possess at least two similarities
to Marsupials that suggest a possible
link related to their origins. First and most importantly they
are both mammals that have an alternative reproductive system
to the majority on earth. Neither have a placenta, and both give
birth much earlier than placental mammals. The young of the marsupial
matures following birth inside a pouch. The second difference
suggesting an associated origin, is the fact they are also the
only other natural mammalian inhabitants of Australia. Prior
to the modern introduction of placentals such as the dingo, the
continent was inhabited exclusively by monotreme and marsupial
mammals. Most of the 140
species of marsupials in Australia are found nowhere else
in the world, and the naturally occurring marsupial in the United
States is the possum, Didelphis marsupialis. This distribution
pattern must be explained through natural affects upon these
animals following their release from the ark.

The
power of genetic recombination
to alter an organism is still beyond our ability to predict,
but it is certain they occur by design to change organisms. Rates
of gestation, and the timing of birth are made highly variable
through these reactions, and the placental system of reproduction
is certainly modified as a result. It is therefore reasonable
to propose that genetic recombination can alter a mammal from
the placental mode of reproduction to marsupial, and the modern
presence of these animals alternatively explained through regional
selective pressures related to Australia.

Given the similarities between monotremes
and marsupials, it may likewise be logical to propose animals
such as the duck-billed platypus have evolved from another placental
mammal. Evolution is not driven by random genetic changes as
the atheistic scientific community
would have us believe. Instead genetic recombination is responsible
for the variations found in nature, and through a coordinated
manipulation, the changes necessary to convert a placental into
the monotreme mode of reproduction may also be theoretically
possible.

Conclusion

This creation science theory may finally
lay to rest a mystery that has caused a great many people to
believe in the evolution of all animals from a common ancestor.
The absence of plancentals or exclusive existence of multiple
marsupials and the monotremes on Australia can not be explained
by a natural postflood migration from Mt. Ararat in Turkey. This
very fact has even caused a great many Christians to instead
accept that these inhabitants must have evolved in Australia
from a single ancestor.

Truly, the postflood fauna in Australia
may be otherwise inexplicable, and the ability to change from
placental reproduction to marsupial and monotreme has simply
been overlooked by secular scientists who do not perceive that
evolution occurs by design. God clearly designed
DNA editing machinery within our cells, and given our level
of understanding of these reactions, it is theoretically possible
that intentional changes could alter the genes of organisms in
the coordinated manner necessary to accomplish this change in
several animals due to common selective pressures.

Given the tremendous similarity between
the marsupial and placental twins, it would seem that the obvious
explanation has been overlooked in this case. This is almost
certainly due to the atheistic presupposition that mutations
are responsible for the genetic diversity driving evolution.
Such random variability could not possibly assemble the genetic
code necessary to create the same reproductive system in multiple
organism, but intelligently designed machinery is expected to
generate the same certain outcome under similar circumstances.
There are most certainly evolutionary accomplishments evident
today that cannot be explained by random mutations, and instead
creation science theory alone is able to solve such mysteries.